Meredith Mayes Debate Paper #2 10/18/2011
Word Count: 1826
Every morning, humanity is bombarded by news of all types. The economy, local happenings, politics, politicians, catastrophes, anything and everything can be reported in a variety of media. The old-fashioned newspaper, television, websites, blogs, even Twitter has become a way to spread the news. The uninformed risk being out of date and seem out of touch. However, there is a black sheep amongst the crowd competing for the ability to present humankind with the news known as “Political Satire,” or the people who make fun of the news. The most widely renowned of this group is Jon Stewart and his daily program, although there are others involved in the game. At stake are the validity of these programs, which some people really rely on for their news, and the validity of true news shows for providing information. After all, watching the real news is often a depressing affair that can cause the viewer to walk away feeling as though there is nothing good in the world. From the time of heralds, through the era of newspapers and television, for the first time in history, comedy could surpass respectable journalists for giving the majority of information.
Matt Welch argues against the growing love of political satire and the population using it to inform themselves. Tom Junod argues that these comedians are the only ones who stand to gain from our viewing their programs, and we get smiles, but nothing else. Even Jon Stewart thought that the comparison of himself to Edward Murrow was ridiculous. But Tom also argues that Jon Stewart cannot go back to just being a comedian for his pandering with men like Jim Cramer.
In a way, it is ridiculous the degree of fame gained by men such as Stewart and Colbert. These are men that people are willing to support into an election despite no really political background. They mock, but do not build. They do not have investigative journalists to find their stories, they merely piggy-back on other stories and behavior of politicians. There are scripts in the Daily Show, the primary draw for political parody watchers, which means that the news is rehearsed – it isn’t really original news at all. And it was never intended to be. The programs are intended to be funny, but they are not meant to be news. The arguments for comedy only being useful for some laughs are thin and insubstantial, especially compared to studies run which prove that this is not so. One such study is discussed later in this paper.
But the arguments against political parody are slim, and the arguments for it also lay at the door of inadequate news programs. One such person who argues for watching comedy news for the information content is Chris Smith, who visited the studio of Jon Stewart. He claims that in a world where newspapers are failing and Americans distrust their news networks, some genre must take their place. And now is political comedy’s time. He claims that the show parodies both Democrats and Republicans, although not equally. For example, Jon Stewart was just as willing to crucify Obama as he was to mock Bush. Furthermore, Smith argues that these shows use real headlines and real news to prove their point, that the staff and writers double-check statistics and dates used in the script. And the fact that Jon Stewart does not take himself seriously only enhances his position, since if the news was doing its job appropriately, there would be no need for people to rely on him.
This article was primarily a look at Jon Stewart and his show, and not necessarily an opinion piece on his qualifications to lead America in news. It is overwhelmingly obvious that Smith supports Jon Stewart and his work on cutting through all the filler information presented to us every day. He valiantly tries to promote the accuracy and reliability of the information that Jon is presenting. This promotion certainly adds weight to supporting Jon Stewart’s show, but I believe that information on the writer may truly impact the tone of this article. But what both of these articles completely neglect is the failure of the real news programs to successfully convey information to the public. Just because Jon Stewart checks his facts twice does not necessarily make him the man you should listen to. The problem lies in the news channels we have now and their general reputation for bias. People do not want to listen to a spoon-fed agenda, and those that are hard to listen to due to the inability to listen to another side of the argument.
Enter a study done on the Jon Stewart show versus the various news shows. Julia R. Fox conducted a study analyzing the content of news shows and the Daily Show. Her conclusion was that the content found in both sectors was almost identical. She did not include parodies such as the Colbert Report, so her argument only applies to the Daily Show. Fox also cited various studies in this paper on comedy news. In a study conducted after the 2004 election, it was found that within the population under 30, 21% relied on comedy for their political information compared to 23% relying on the news. In 2000, only 9% relied on comedy for news while 39% relied on the news. Another study cited was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election survey found that people who watched the Daily Show answered more political questions correctly than their peers who did not. Even psychology backs this phenomenon up. One researcher found that positive messages are encoded in the brain better than stories with negative spin and that, “audience laughter may elicit…orienting responses that bring additional processing resources to the viewing task.” In short, that when the news avoids the depressing presentation and creates a positive response such as laughter, the brain remembers and processes information better. Fox is careful to state; however, that the shows are only identical in substance. The media was found to have substantial quantities of hype, more so than substance, and the Daily Show had more humor than substance. This article really extends the argument that Americans’ understanding of the political sphere, in fact; it proves components of the argument conclusively.
Another study conducted by Ohio State University claims the opposite. This particular study claims that people who watch fake news shows including the Colbert Report (which was discounted in the above study) were less informed about the political issues and candidates’ positions on these issues than those that watched the real news program. But the group is careful to admit that those that watch shows are still more informed than those that do not watch any televised news at all. According to Young Mie Kim, a co-author of the study, “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more…than those exposed to entertainment media.” The study also did not use as constant of a population pool. Fox statistically analyzed the actual content of shows. The Ohio State researchers surveyed 85 people from a Midwestern City, which is not as wide pool of people. They are geographically limited and it is not a relatively large population size, as the participants had a wide range of ages (18-64). Then the group was tested on their information. This article really calls the comedy news “reporters” out for really skewing the opinions of people and providing irrelevant information. This was interesting to me because while the information is logical, it also conflicts with what is, in my opinion, a stronger study. There is certainly some merit to this information, but all it really does is confirm the opinion of these comedic reporters that they are not journalists, they are people putting on a show. If people know this going in, they are responsible for sorting out what is obviously showmanship and what is information, and they should be trusted, as adults, to do this for themselves.
The argument is fairly simple to summarize. On the one hand, there are those that argue that comedy is just funny, but does not and should not provide anything more than light entertainment. Those that claim to be informed from such a program are really just fooling themselves. On the other hand, anything that can generate the slightest interest in the world should not be downplayed. It is a similar argument applied to children’s books and fads that occur in the literature world. There are those that argue that Harry Potter is not literature, it isn’t even well written, it isn’t a good story, a variety of complaints lobbied against one of the most popular series of all times. The other side simply says: if you complain about declining reading skills and here comes a series that not only encourages children to read but causes them to read avariciously, but it isn’t necessarily the classics you had in mind, why do you want to stop them. The parallels are clear. One of the most vocal opponents against comedy news, calling it just comedy, is Fox News. Networks only want people to watch their news.
I would be inclined to say that the real nature of this debate does not lie in whether or not Americans should watch comedy for their news, but whether or not this is really the fault of large news broadcasters that some people do. I, for one, do not see why Americans should not rely on comedians to present the news, especially in light of Fox’s research discovering that the Daily Show provides as much information as the dull, dry and often depressing news programs. Additionally, it is difficult to trust people who are clearly selected for looks but not necessarily the personality or understanding to inspire belief in what these people are reporting. It is one thing to know that a man worked on a script to create an entertaining show on the news deemed important rather than just reading a teleprompter that has words written by someone else who wasn’t deemed beautiful enough to make it in front of a camera. Even if another study provided information concerning the inadequacy of satire news in the conveyance information, it is still better that Americans gain some information than none at all. I firmly believe that a mildly informed population is better than an ignorant population.
Fox, J. R.; G. Koloen, V. Sahin. No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media: June 2007.
Smith, Chris. “America Is a Joke.” New York Magazine, September 12, 2010. < http://nymag.com/arts/tv/profiles/68086/>.
Welch, Matt. “The ‘Jon Stewart Game’: Everyone Loses, Except Him!” Reason, September 19, 2011. < http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/19/the-jon-stewart-game-everyone>.
“‘Fake’ News Shows Less Important in Learning about Politics. Newswise: September 8, 2008.< http://newswise.com/articles/view/544129/>.
Word Count: 1826
Every morning, humanity is bombarded by news of all types. The economy, local happenings, politics, politicians, catastrophes, anything and everything can be reported in a variety of media. The old-fashioned newspaper, television, websites, blogs, even Twitter has become a way to spread the news. The uninformed risk being out of date and seem out of touch. However, there is a black sheep amongst the crowd competing for the ability to present humankind with the news known as “Political Satire,” or the people who make fun of the news. The most widely renowned of this group is Jon Stewart and his daily program, although there are others involved in the game. At stake are the validity of these programs, which some people really rely on for their news, and the validity of true news shows for providing information. After all, watching the real news is often a depressing affair that can cause the viewer to walk away feeling as though there is nothing good in the world. From the time of heralds, through the era of newspapers and television, for the first time in history, comedy could surpass respectable journalists for giving the majority of information.
Matt Welch argues against the growing love of political satire and the population using it to inform themselves. Tom Junod argues that these comedians are the only ones who stand to gain from our viewing their programs, and we get smiles, but nothing else. Even Jon Stewart thought that the comparison of himself to Edward Murrow was ridiculous. But Tom also argues that Jon Stewart cannot go back to just being a comedian for his pandering with men like Jim Cramer.
In a way, it is ridiculous the degree of fame gained by men such as Stewart and Colbert. These are men that people are willing to support into an election despite no really political background. They mock, but do not build. They do not have investigative journalists to find their stories, they merely piggy-back on other stories and behavior of politicians. There are scripts in the Daily Show, the primary draw for political parody watchers, which means that the news is rehearsed – it isn’t really original news at all. And it was never intended to be. The programs are intended to be funny, but they are not meant to be news. The arguments for comedy only being useful for some laughs are thin and insubstantial, especially compared to studies run which prove that this is not so. One such study is discussed later in this paper.
But the arguments against political parody are slim, and the arguments for it also lay at the door of inadequate news programs. One such person who argues for watching comedy news for the information content is Chris Smith, who visited the studio of Jon Stewart. He claims that in a world where newspapers are failing and Americans distrust their news networks, some genre must take their place. And now is political comedy’s time. He claims that the show parodies both Democrats and Republicans, although not equally. For example, Jon Stewart was just as willing to crucify Obama as he was to mock Bush. Furthermore, Smith argues that these shows use real headlines and real news to prove their point, that the staff and writers double-check statistics and dates used in the script. And the fact that Jon Stewart does not take himself seriously only enhances his position, since if the news was doing its job appropriately, there would be no need for people to rely on him.
This article was primarily a look at Jon Stewart and his show, and not necessarily an opinion piece on his qualifications to lead America in news. It is overwhelmingly obvious that Smith supports Jon Stewart and his work on cutting through all the filler information presented to us every day. He valiantly tries to promote the accuracy and reliability of the information that Jon is presenting. This promotion certainly adds weight to supporting Jon Stewart’s show, but I believe that information on the writer may truly impact the tone of this article. But what both of these articles completely neglect is the failure of the real news programs to successfully convey information to the public. Just because Jon Stewart checks his facts twice does not necessarily make him the man you should listen to. The problem lies in the news channels we have now and their general reputation for bias. People do not want to listen to a spoon-fed agenda, and those that are hard to listen to due to the inability to listen to another side of the argument.
Enter a study done on the Jon Stewart show versus the various news shows. Julia R. Fox conducted a study analyzing the content of news shows and the Daily Show. Her conclusion was that the content found in both sectors was almost identical. She did not include parodies such as the Colbert Report, so her argument only applies to the Daily Show. Fox also cited various studies in this paper on comedy news. In a study conducted after the 2004 election, it was found that within the population under 30, 21% relied on comedy for their political information compared to 23% relying on the news. In 2000, only 9% relied on comedy for news while 39% relied on the news. Another study cited was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election survey found that people who watched the Daily Show answered more political questions correctly than their peers who did not. Even psychology backs this phenomenon up. One researcher found that positive messages are encoded in the brain better than stories with negative spin and that, “audience laughter may elicit…orienting responses that bring additional processing resources to the viewing task.” In short, that when the news avoids the depressing presentation and creates a positive response such as laughter, the brain remembers and processes information better. Fox is careful to state; however, that the shows are only identical in substance. The media was found to have substantial quantities of hype, more so than substance, and the Daily Show had more humor than substance. This article really extends the argument that Americans’ understanding of the political sphere, in fact; it proves components of the argument conclusively.
Another study conducted by Ohio State University claims the opposite. This particular study claims that people who watch fake news shows including the Colbert Report (which was discounted in the above study) were less informed about the political issues and candidates’ positions on these issues than those that watched the real news program. But the group is careful to admit that those that watch shows are still more informed than those that do not watch any televised news at all. According to Young Mie Kim, a co-author of the study, “Both news and entertainment media seem to promote some knowledge gain, but people who are exposed to news gain more factual information and learn more…than those exposed to entertainment media.” The study also did not use as constant of a population pool. Fox statistically analyzed the actual content of shows. The Ohio State researchers surveyed 85 people from a Midwestern City, which is not as wide pool of people. They are geographically limited and it is not a relatively large population size, as the participants had a wide range of ages (18-64). Then the group was tested on their information. This article really calls the comedy news “reporters” out for really skewing the opinions of people and providing irrelevant information. This was interesting to me because while the information is logical, it also conflicts with what is, in my opinion, a stronger study. There is certainly some merit to this information, but all it really does is confirm the opinion of these comedic reporters that they are not journalists, they are people putting on a show. If people know this going in, they are responsible for sorting out what is obviously showmanship and what is information, and they should be trusted, as adults, to do this for themselves.
The argument is fairly simple to summarize. On the one hand, there are those that argue that comedy is just funny, but does not and should not provide anything more than light entertainment. Those that claim to be informed from such a program are really just fooling themselves. On the other hand, anything that can generate the slightest interest in the world should not be downplayed. It is a similar argument applied to children’s books and fads that occur in the literature world. There are those that argue that Harry Potter is not literature, it isn’t even well written, it isn’t a good story, a variety of complaints lobbied against one of the most popular series of all times. The other side simply says: if you complain about declining reading skills and here comes a series that not only encourages children to read but causes them to read avariciously, but it isn’t necessarily the classics you had in mind, why do you want to stop them. The parallels are clear. One of the most vocal opponents against comedy news, calling it just comedy, is Fox News. Networks only want people to watch their news.
I would be inclined to say that the real nature of this debate does not lie in whether or not Americans should watch comedy for their news, but whether or not this is really the fault of large news broadcasters that some people do. I, for one, do not see why Americans should not rely on comedians to present the news, especially in light of Fox’s research discovering that the Daily Show provides as much information as the dull, dry and often depressing news programs. Additionally, it is difficult to trust people who are clearly selected for looks but not necessarily the personality or understanding to inspire belief in what these people are reporting. It is one thing to know that a man worked on a script to create an entertaining show on the news deemed important rather than just reading a teleprompter that has words written by someone else who wasn’t deemed beautiful enough to make it in front of a camera. Even if another study provided information concerning the inadequacy of satire news in the conveyance information, it is still better that Americans gain some information than none at all. I firmly believe that a mildly informed population is better than an ignorant population.
Fox, J. R.; G. Koloen, V. Sahin. No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media: June 2007.
Smith, Chris. “America Is a Joke.” New York Magazine, September 12, 2010. < http://nymag.com/arts/tv/profiles/68086/>.
Welch, Matt. “The ‘Jon Stewart Game’: Everyone Loses, Except Him!” Reason, September 19, 2011. < http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/19/the-jon-stewart-game-everyone>.
“‘Fake’ News Shows Less Important in Learning about Politics. Newswise: September 8, 2008.< http://newswise.com/articles/view/544129/>.